6d. Did Liz spend it, or die for it?

[Cogidubnus]

I don't disagree that, on one level at least, it may not matter whether or not the victims were actually soliciting or not...so long as either Jack thought they were...or Jack was an opportunist killer...

However, on another level, it may after all matter...the MO with Nicholls and Chapman (Tabram too if you choose to include her) appears (and I emphasise appears) to be a "pick up" with the victim then being allowed to lead the killer to a secluded place of her own choosing...It's a technique which appears to serve the killer well, so why vary it?

So the technique is suddenly NOT used with Stride, but then may well be with Eddowes (though we can't be sure), and again appears to be with Kelly...

So, arguably, (and I agree it's moot) the question of whether a victim was soliciting (and would therefore lead the killer off somewhere) may be important...it could even be that Jack tried his luck with any number of potential victims and was rebuffed by a refusal to take him off somewhere...some of the press reports, admittedly lurid, do suggest this just might be the case...

Who knows what may or may not be important at this distance?

All the best

Dave

[Michael W Richards]

Hi Caz,

Let me reply in the body of your post;

But Mike, as c.d. among others has observed, it shouldn't be a factor in your reasoning because it wouldn't have been a factor in the ripper's reasoning. Or are you seriously suggesting that a flower would have told him not to try his luck with this one, because she was obviously a cut above going off with strangers, despite being alone outside the club at that late hour, and described by witnesses as "poorly dressed"?

I believe there is evidence in the first 2 murders that the active solicitation, (as we can say without equivocation in the case of Polly and Annie...they admitted as much to others...), shows us that the Ripper followed the lead, he didnt lead himself. The women would be hustling the killer at first, then, because they would lead him somewhere private and dark, he simply let them do that. Let them feel safe, in control. Its not just the flower Caz, as you well know, there is a virtual case for Liz to have been waiting for something, or someone, specific, based on the totality of the evidence leading up to her disappearance,...sometime after PC Smith leaves. As for poorly or good evening wear, I would suppose that the opinion source needs to be considered when evaluating that...to another Unfortunate living at the lodging house, simple clean clothes might be "good evening wear".

Exactly so. We can conclude that the ripper relied on his victims' co-operation (active or passive), because not one was dragged or forced to where he was able to perform the mutilations.....I agree with that obviously..... Similarly, Stride appears to have determined the spot where her killer cut her throat, which would - as you say - have given him little chance to mutilate if that had been his original aim....Im not sure that Liz chose any spot to be with a client Caz, her choice may have been based on entirely different criteria... If her killer (ripper or not) thought she was there because she was waiting for someone - anyone - then he had to strike quickly and get away as fast as possible, or risk that person arriving and catching him in the act. ...which would limit his exposure to the bodies after the murder, which it seems by murders 1 and 2 is his priority in these sordid affairs....If this was the ripper, he'd have been less than thrilled to find her unwilling to go off with him like Nichols and Chapman had....and so he would have buggered off without drawing a knife or any suspicion that she encountered the "ripper". He would just be an aborted liaison to the woman,...not worth mentioning again.

But only if the next prospective victim had agreed to go off with him, allowing him the time and privacy he needed to get stuck in. We know that Stride would not have given the ripper what he needed in this respect, but he could not have known that if he saw her hanging around the club like she was just waiting for someone like him to whisk her off.

Technically, this murderer could have met up with Liz just after the PC leaves, and spent time with her...most likely inside the gates since only Israel Schwartz claims to see her on the street after 12:35, with multiple witnesses to that period of time....In fact I proposed to Sam once that she was waiting in the passage for someone, a man came by and tried to get her to go back into the yard...he mistook her intentions also ...., and she resisted at first. He got physical, poked her in the chest, and grabbed her and tried to pull her into the yard as a club attendee named Israel Schwartz came out the side door, he grimaces at Israel..he flees and pees....and Liz smarts off to the thug, she is after all, capable of taking care of herself with mean customers. She has taken out some mints to freshen her mouth, dry by this confrontation, and she turns and heads toward the open gates. Thug man is inebriated and P*ssed off at being insulted, grabs her scarf and pulls it backward, Liz loses balance, and in a moment of anger and poor judgement, the creep pulls a knife and slides it across her throat while she is still falling or down on her side. He leaves via the gates. All this takes place before Louis arrives, at whatever time he really arrived at.

All Louis knows is that he comes across a dead woman with a slit throat during a throat-slitting spree in the area on his virtual doorstep, on the club property, with a quiet street outside. Looks bad. He goes into a defensive statement mode.

All the best Caz, hope you didnt mind my manner of answering.

Cheers

[caz]

Hi cd,

I do realize that it seems as if I want to use Solicitation as the litmus test for whether Liz Stride was a Ripper victim, but in practical terms it is but one factor among many that lead me to that conclusion. For this thread... it is the element I emphasize the most.

But Mike, as c.d. among others has observed, it shouldn't be a factor in your reasoning because it wouldn't have been a factor in the ripper's reasoning. Or are you seriously suggesting that a flower would have told him not to try his luck with this one, because she was obviously a cut above going off with strangers, despite being alone outside the club at that late hour, and described by witnesses as "poorly dressed"?

...the fact that she is found far closer to the actual street than Annie Chapman, Kate Eddowes or Mary Kelly...thereby eliminating the likelihood of time and privacy for any kind of mutilations.....

Exactly so. We can conclude that the ripper relied on his victims' co-operation (active or passive), because not one was dragged or forced to where he was able to perform the mutilations. Similarly, Stride appears to have determined the spot where her killer cut her throat, which would - as you say - have given him little chance to mutilate if that had been his original aim. If her killer (ripper or not) thought she was there because she was waiting for someone - anyone - then he had to strike quickly and get away as fast as possible, or risk that person arriving and catching him in the act. If this was the ripper, he'd have been less than thrilled to find her unwilling to go off with him like Nichols and Chapman had.

There are more ideas about this case to cite, but the main thing to focus on when assessing Liz Stride, IMHO of course, is that the killer of Polly and Annie would have mutilated any future victims with the same focus and intent. A murder is just the preamble.

But only if the next prospective victim had agreed to go off with him, allowing him the time and privacy he needed to get stuck in. We know that Stride would not have given the ripper what he needed in this respect, but he could not have known that if he saw her hanging around the club like she was just waiting for someone like him to whisk her off.

Love,

Caz
X

[Michael W Richards]

William Wess did not remember seeing anyone in the street..

[Coroner] Or did you meet any one in the street? - Not that I recollect. I generally go home between twelve and one o'clock.

Is he likely to forget seeing the victim, and a policeman, less than 30 minutes before the murder?

Because I believe like with all the witnesses with direct links to the Club or the paper, some "fudging" occurred. That night or later at the Inquest. Lave not seeing Wess...or Eagle, Eagle not seeing Lave or knowing whether he had to step around a dead woman lying on the ground, nobody seeing Diemshutz arrive, a suspiciously founded story and appearance by a "passing by" Immigrant Jew witnessing an assault...seen or heard by no-one, .....

On the night statement were taken that suggest the Inquest versions, and the choice of witnesses to put forward, may have been manipulated by the people who had the most to loss by any suspicion on the Club or its attendees.

They would have been closed immediately, and their cause, irrevocably tainted.

Cheers

[c.d.]

Hello Caz,

Thanks for that. Yeah, there is certainly a lot of discussion and argument as to whether Liz was soliciting that night but to me it is a moot point. All that talk of Liz's attire and preparation for going out would be completely lost on Jack. All he would see is a single woman late at night standing by herself, lint brush and velvet be damned. As you say, we will never know what happened next. But trying to determine whether Liz was actively soliciting or not that night won't give us the answer.

c.d.

P.S. I enjoyed the heading on your post. Very appropriate.

[caz]

To prostitute or not to prostitute - why is that the question?

Hello Michael,

You have certainly put together a strong argument that Liz was not soliciting. But you are also trying to turn it into an if A then B argument which it is not. In other words, if you can show that Liz was not soliciting that night then she cannot be a Ripper victim. There are two problems with that. The first is that Liz's intention to actively solicit that night is not written in stone. You want us to believe that she swore a sacred oath in front of witnesses and signed in blood that she would not solicit that night. The other problem is that Jack would have absolutely no way of knowing whether she was soliciting unless she were holding up a sign. It is perfectly reasonable to assume that a woman by herself late at night out on the street was soliciting especially if he had seen her doing so before at some point. He might have even been a previous customer of hers. Now let's assume that he approaches her and is told that she is waiting for someone or given some other excuse. Now let's also assume that Liz is tired. It is late and she is cold. It might seem to her that whoever she is waiting for is not going to show up. Her financial situation is not good and she would like to have some money for drink or other purposes. Jack gives her a story about how he just got paid and he wants to have some fun. He offers twice the usual amount. Is she really going to turn that down? That is what we don't know and any argument attempting to show that she was not actively soliciting that night cannot give us an answer to that question. That's the rub.

c.d.

Brilliant post, c.d.

I really think it's about time the focus was taken off the supposed morals of the victims, and what each one may or may not have been prepared to do on any given night, depending on their immediate needs and what money was on offer. Firstly we'll never know for sure, no matter how we interpret the limited evidence, and secondly I wonder about its relevance to the question of who killed Stride and why.

Love,

Caz
X

[Wickerman]

,...the fact that she is seen in the company of who was very likely William Wess with editions of the fresh off the press Arbeter Fraint under his arm by PC Smith,..

William Wess did not remember seeing anyone in the street..

[Coroner] Or did you meet any one in the street? - Not that I recollect. I generally go home between twelve and one o'clock.

Is he likely to forget seeing the victim, and a policeman, less than 30 minutes before the murder?

[Michael W Richards]

Hello Michael,

You have certainly put together a strong argument that Liz was not soliciting. But you are also trying to turn it into an if A then B argument which it is not. In other words, if you can show that Liz was not soliciting that night then she cannot be a Ripper victim. There are two problems with that. The first is that Liz's intention to actively solicit that night is not written in stone. You want us to believe that she swore a sacred oath in front of witnesses and signed in blood that she would not solicit that night. The other problem is that Jack would have absolutely no way of knowing whether she was soliciting unless she were holding up a sign. It is perfectly reasonable to assume that a woman by herself late at night out on the street was soliciting especially if he had seen her doing so before at some point. He might have even been a previous customer of hers. Now let's assume that he approaches her and is told that she is waiting for someone or given some other excuse. Now let's also assume that Liz is tired. It is late and she is cold. It might seem to her that whoever she is waiting for is not going to show up. Her financial situation is not good and she would like to have some money for drink or other purposes. Jack gives her a story about how he just got paid and he wants to have some fun. He offers twice the usual amount. Is she really going to turn that down? That is what we don't know and any argument attempting to show that she was not actively soliciting that night cannot give us an answer to that question. That's the rub.

c.d.

Hi cd,

I do realize that it seems as if I want to use Solicitation as the litmus test for whether Liz Stride was a Ripper victim, but in practical terms it is but one factor among many that lead me to that conclusion. For this thread... it is the element I emphasize the most.

I believe what we can use reliably cd are the statements concerning her demeanor and attitude before leaving the lodging house, as the evening progresses using various witnesses, and as she is last seen by someone that I personally feel is reliable,.. PC William Smith.

From the request for a lint brush, to a description of Liz's ensemble by a house mate as "good evening wear", to the leaving of the velvet with someone other than the landlady... which was the convention...for a period of time she could not quantify other than "till I return", , ..the fact she leaves without stating or hinting or in passing that she will return at all that night,... the fact that she is not seen in the act of "sex-sales" when in the company of others,...the fact that she is sober, yet without the 6d she left the lodging house with, but she brandishes 2 new things that we did not hear that she had with her when she left the lodging house,...the fact that she is seen in the company of who was very likely William Wess with editions of the fresh off the press Arbeter Fraint under his arm by PC Smith,....the single cut, nothing indicating further interest in her....the fact its possible she was cut while falling....the fact that the statements of the onsite witnesses vary greatly from the first ones taken an hour after the murder to the ones given, or discarded or witheld, at the Inquest...and those early accounts appear to dramatically contradict the statements given by the 3 people most responsible for the Club and its liability at the Inquest,...the fact that she had been gainfully employed recently, "among the Jews", and had paid work as recent as earlier that day,....the fact that she is found far closer to the actual street than Annie Chapman, Kate Eddowes or Mary Kelly...thereby eliminating the likelihood of time and privacy for any kind of mutilations.....

There are more ideas about this case to cite, but the main thing to focus on when assessing Liz Stride, IMHO of course, is that the killer of Polly and Annie would have mutilated any future victims with the same focus and intent. A murder is just the preamble.

Best regards cd

[c.d.]

Hello Michael,

You have certainly put together a strong argument that Liz was not soliciting. But you are also trying to turn it into an if A then B argument which it is not. In other words, if you can show that Liz was not soliciting that night then she cannot be a Ripper victim. There are two problems with that. The first is that Liz's intention to actively solicit that night is not written in stone. You want us to believe that she swore a sacred oath in front of witnesses and signed in blood that she would not solicit that night. The other problem is that Jack would have absolutely no way of knowing whether she was soliciting unless she were holding up a sign. It is perfectly reasonable to assume that a woman by herself late at night out on the street was soliciting especially if he had seen her doing so before at some point. He might have even been a previous customer of hers. Now let's assume that he approaches her and is told that she is waiting for someone or given some other excuse. Now let's also assume that Liz is tired. It is late and she is cold. It might seem to her that whoever she is waiting for is not going to show up. Her financial situation is not good and she would like to have some money for drink or other purposes. Jack gives her a story about how he just got paid and he wants to have some fun. He offers twice the usual amount. Is she really going to turn that down? That is what we don't know and any argument attempting to show that she was not actively soliciting that night cannot give us an answer to that question. That's the rub.

c.d.

[Michael W Richards]

Personally, I'd just as soon you use a modern term, like "sex workers." I realize it is anachronistic, but it is unambiguous, gets the point across, and feels much less judgmental, to me, than a lot of other terms.

Point taken Rivkah, and I agree with the above thinking too.

Cheers

[RivkahChaya]

Michael, I agree with what you are trying to get at, and you know that I don't think either Stride or Eddowes was soliciting, and though I think MJK was a pro, I'm not sure she was actively soliciting on the night she was killed, and may have had someone show up at her door after she was "off" for the night.

However:

1. Categorically, only 4 of the 5 can be classed as Unfortunate. The term refers to unmarried women who do not have ample employment to secure a bed each and every night, and so must resort to prostitution out of desperation. Ergo, Prostitution is not their only source of income.
2. Prostitutes do what they do as their primary source of income.

If you are trying to structure this as some kind of syllogism, or at any rate, define away ambiguities, you cannot use the word "Prostitution" and "Prostitute" this way.

You have to define your terms better, for example, in "1."; "prostitution" with a lower case "p" is the act of exchanging sex for money, and does not imply a pattern of behavior, or the adoption of a regular scheme of procuring income. in "2."; "Prostitute" with a capital "P" is a person (in all our examples here, a woman), who as a matter of planning and intention, regularly exchanges sex for money, and this is generally regarded as her profession.

If you want a word to describe acting as a Prostitute over a period of time, you can't use "prostitution" as short-hand, because that already means something else. You can try calling it "Prostitution," but I promise that will be confusing. You'll have to say "acting as a professional prostitute," or something, and say it every time. Pros have their own words for it. Some call it "the life," and in context, everyone knows what it means.

Personally, I'd just as soon you use a modern term, like "sex workers." I realize it is anachronistic, but it is unambiguous, gets the point across, and feels much less judgmental, to me, than a lot of other terms.

[Michael W Richards]

Hello all,

Ive been reading what Ive missed and it still amazes me that many folks lump the knowns of all the women assigned to the "Ripper Series" together as irrelevant.. if they in any way deviate from the OPINION that these women were all Unfortunates and were all soliciting at the time they meet their murderer(s).

I dont care who disputes the following, these are factual points and not up for rebuttal, ... a quick review of the accepted known evidence concerning this issue and these cases....

1. Categorically, only 4 of the 5 can be classed as Unfortunate. The term refers to unmarried women who do not have ample employment to secure a bed each and every night, and so must resort to prostitution out of desperation. Ergo, Prostitution is not their only source of income.
2. Prostitutes do what they do as their primary source of income.
3. Only 2 women within the Canonical Group told others that they were in the process of earning their doss when they are last seen alive. Polly tells Emily Holland, and Annie tells Tim Donovan.
4. There is no hard evidence that Liz Stride, Kate Eddowes and Mary Kelly were also out "earning their beds for the night", and in Marys case, she is the only one of the 5 that cannot be classified as Unfortunate. The room is in her name, and she has been able to run arrears.
5. The last witness that saw Liz Stride alive that can be trusted without reservation is PC Smith, and when he sees Liz at 12:35am, she is on the street opposite the gates and talking with someone holding a parcel. We cannot assume that any further alleged sightings from 12:35am until 1am are given with absolute integrity for accuracy...Smith had a watch for one. And no other sighting has any verification.
6. There is no statement anywhere that suggests the street women of Whitechapel/Spitalfields dressed nicely, wore flowers, and had breath mints in order to facilitate their business with street clients.
7. Categorically, the highest instance of Sexually Transmitted diseases reported at the time of the murders occurred within the Dock workers category.
8. We have no evidence that Kate Eddowes was in fact soliciting, and we have reason to wonder about any identification that cannot be made within 2 weeks of the murder, as stated by the witness himself.
9. The International Working Mens Club on Berner Street was known by police before and after the murder on their property, before they were categorized as "anarchists", afterward some members get arrested in the Spring of '89 for assaulting police with bats and clubs.
10. Israel Schwartz's statement is given to us by recollection and in the words of CI Donald Swanson. He is not recorded as appearing at the Inquest, there is no evidence his statement was suppressed, as was Lawendes, and there is no evidence at all that the altercation he allegedly described ever took place.

I find this whole matter much easier to sort out if you read virtually every available document and source to get the full picture and as much of the detail as possible, determine what is provable and what is not by virtue of witness credibility, corroboration and known facts, and then proceed with the evidence that can be reasonably trusted.

To assume Stride was soliciting negates all the evidence that something much different was in her plans for that night, and it validates statements and opinions which have no factual or corroborative value.

I know which side of the fence Id rather be on...even if it means that individuals who choose to believe things that are not proven or reasonable continually suggest that I, and others, are misguided in our assessment methods and fanciful in our surmising.

My best regards

[Cogidubnus]

Soupstrainer

Hi Jon

Well that's certainly something else to consider!

Cheers

Dave

[lynn cates]

off the list

Hello Jon. Just so. And one of many reasons NOT to include Kidney in the list of potential killers.

Cheers.
LC

[Jon Guy]

I`m not knocking the Kidney angle but BS Man had a small brown moustache and Kidney had this baby: